|
I stand with the no-callers on this provided your example of the no-call in inning 1 was not blatantly obvious.
First, I'm not worried if the coach or anyone wants to call a balk from the bench. Let them. I'm not involved until coach wants conference to discuss it (and prior to that the rabbit ears were in the hat). I don't know if it is good to admit, but I have had plenty of practice in handling situations (should I post back to myself and declare that a slam?). I don't make my decisions on fear of the argument. I make decision on fairness as to intent of rule and level of play, and on what I can legitimately use to support my call if questioned. In this scenerio (no attempts on runners, no intent, no advantage gained, was not blatantly obvious) and coach subsequently questions why no balk, I respond, "coach, I didn't see it as you did. There was no obvious play occurring and perhaps he came off with wrong foot, I wasn't certain. I don't score runs if I am not certain. I think if I am not certain the runs should be scored by the teams, not the officials". Let him say what he wants (within reason), then progress. You have not said he's wrong, you have stated a well accepted position, and declared your uncertainty. Now it's time to play.
If you make mistake of arguing that you are not calling the balk because it's not in the INTENT of the rule, you'll be arguing til the new edition is out that changes the rule.
Now, I have stated how I would handle the situation. It doesn't bring the the ifs, ands, and buts---as highlighted Jim Mills' post. To refute main argument of ifs with Jim, I don't think the batter should relax at the plate thinking F! is not delivering. I say that as an ex-player and not as an official.
Just my opinion,
(added note)---the argument of uncertainty is legitimate explanation that is solid justification for many no-call situations. Consistency in explanation and procedure!!!
[Edited by Bfair on Jan 9th, 2001 at 12:35 PM]
|